Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, directed to a method of manufacturing an electrolyte membrane, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/8/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20200313216A1 (Kim) in view of US20200075983A1 (Yu).
Claim 1, Kim teaches a membrane electrode assembly for fuel cells [abs]; an electrolyte membrane for a membrane-electrode assembly, comprising: an ionomer having proton conductivity; and a composite dispersed in the ionomer [0040-0047]; wherein the alloy catalyst comprises an alloy of platinum and a metal other than platinum [0046-0047; 0057-0062]. Yu does not teach wherein the composite comprises cerium oxide (CeOx) and an alloy catalyst supported on the cerium oxide. Yu teaches a membrane electrode assembly for fuel cells [abs]; and teaches wherein the composite comprises cerium oxide (CeOx) and an alloy catalyst supported on the cerium oxide [0007, 0024]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim in view of Yu and incorporate the CeOx in the composite as this is used to prevent chemical degradation of the electrolyte membrane [0007].
Claim 2, Kim teaches wherein the cerium oxide is in a form in which a (111) crystal plane is most exposed. It is noted, the claimed “cerium oxide is in a form in which a (111) crystal plane is most exposed” is achieved by synthesis or processing conditions, thus this appears to be a product by process limitation. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113). Therefore, it is the Examiners position, since Kim teaches using CeOx that is dispersed in the ionomer, the process of how the CeOx is made is not given patentable weight, as the claims are directed to the product itself.
Claim 3, modified Kim teaches wherein the cerium oxide, however is silent with respect to the cerium oxide is a polyhedron, and wherein at least one of a surface or an inside of the polyhedron is supported with the alloy catalyst. It is noted, a polyhedron is a shape of the cerium oxide, therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cerium oxide to be a polyhedron shape without it affecting the function of the membrane; The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Claim 4, Kim teaches wherein the metal other than platinum comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of: palladium (Pd), ruthenium (Ru), iridium (Ir), gold (Au), silver (Ag), chromium (Cr), manganese (Mn), iron (Fe), cobalt (Co), nickel (Ni), copper (Cu), molybdenum (Mo), yttrium (Y), and combinations thereof [0046-0047].
Claim 5, modified Kim teaches wherein the composite comprises, based on 100 parts by weight of the cerium oxide, 0.1 parts by weight to 10 parts by weight of the platinum and 0.1 parts by weight to 10 parts by weight of the metal [Yu 0076].
Claim 7, Kim teaches comprising a reinforcement layer and an ion transport layer formed on at least one side of the reinforcement layer [fig. 4; #11], wherein the ion transport layer comprises the ionomer and the composite [0053-0055].
Claim 8, Kim teaches comprising a reinforcement layer, a first ion transport layer [#12] formed on an upper side of the reinforcement layer [#11], and a second ion transport layer [#13] formed on a lower side of the reinforcement layer, wherein one of the first or second ion transport layer does not comprise the composite [0053-0055; fig. 4, #11]
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20200313216A1 (Kim) in view of US20200075983A1 (Yu) and in further view of US20090053403A1 (Akita).
Claim 6, Kim and Yu are silent with respect to wherein the composite is 1 µg/cm2 to 30 µg/cm2 based on a total amount of the electrolyte membrane. Akita teaches a method of producing an electrolyte membrane for a fuel cell [abs] and teaches the composite content to be 17 µg/cm2 which falls within the claimed ranges [0034-0038; 0059-0064]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Kim in view of modified as results in suppressing degradation of the electrolyte due to peroxide radicals while preventing deformation of the electrolyte membrane [0071].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARIKA GUPTA whose telephone number is (571)272-9907. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571-272-1481. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights